Causation

Question 1

What are the main two principles for jury?

Answer 1

When D is charged with any result crime, crown court must probe their acts/omissions caused the prohibited consequence.
- the jury must be satisfied that the D’s conduct was a factual cause of v’s death or injuries
- jury must be satisfied that D’s conduct was a legal cause of V’s death/injuries

Question 2

How is factual causation determined?

Answer 2

‘But for’ test:
- Must be established that the consequence wouldn’t have occurred when it did but for D’s conduct. If it would’ve happened anyway then there’s no liability.
(White 1910)

Question 3

White (1910)

Answer 3

D put potassium cyanide into his mothers (V) drink with the intent to kill to gain under her will. V then died but because of a heart attack not poisoning. In any event that D had not used enough cyanide for a fatal dose. D acquitted of murder but hadn’t caused her death.

Question 4

Is factual causation on it own insufficient for liability?

Answer 4

Yes. It’s essential that legal causation is established well, this is a question for the jury. Whether the consequence can fairly be said to be D’s fault. (Dalloway 1847)

Question 5

Dalloway (1847)

Answer 5

D was driving a horse and cart without holding reins. A child (v) ran in front of the cart and was struck by one of the wheels. D charged with manslaughter but jury acquitted. Even if he was holding onto reins he wouldn’t have been able to stop it in time

Question 6

What happens when there are multiple causes?

Answer 6

D’s act/omission doesn’t need to be the sole or main cause of the V’s death/injury. It’s sufficient enough that D’s acts provides more than a minimal cause.
Other causes may be the acts of others or even V themselves

Question 7

Pagett (1983)

Answer 7

Goff LJ “ where the third party’s act is a reasonable response to D’s initial act, the chain itself won’t be broken”

Question 8

Deliberate acts - D injecting heroin into V?

Answer 8

If the V then overdoses and died then the D has caused the death and faces liability for constructive manslaughter
(CATO 1986)

Question 9

Self injection of V but D supplies?

Answer 9

Self injection of V breaks the chain of causation. Their deliberate and voluntary act makes D not liable.
(KENNEDY 2007)

Question 10

Kennedy (2007)

Answer 10

V injected himself with supply from D. D convicted of manslaughter but appealed successfully. Criminal law assumes the existence if free will so D is not liable

Question 11

Actions of the victim: fright or flight

Answer 11

V bringing about their own death/injuries trying to escape from a threat (whether real or imagined) posed by D.
- need to establish ‘chain of causation’
If v’s actions in trying to are ‘daft’ it breaks the chain of causation. The question of ‘daftness’ is for the jury.
(MAJORAM)

Question 12

MAJORAM (2000)

Answer 12

D shouted abuse and kicked V’s hostel room door leading to V falling or possibly jumped from the window.
D said he broke the floor down as he heard the window being opened and intended to rescue v from suicide.
HELD: D convicted of inflicting GBH.
V’s reaction was not daft